Four Seasons Brands, LLC v. Kirstie L. Crivello

18 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,177 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
572 U.S. 118 (2014) Cited 2,869 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 104 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.
833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 163 times
Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.
222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 72 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"
Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc.
912 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Cited 67 times
Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times
Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. v. Naked TM, LLC
965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement
Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC
978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020) Cited 8 times 3 Legal Analyses
2019-1526 10-27-2020 CORCAMORE, LLC, Appellant v. SFM, LLC, Appellee Charles L. Thomason, Thomason Law Office, Louisville, KY, argued for appellant. Johanna Wilbert, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellee. Also represented by Nicole Murray, Christian G. Stahl, Chicago, IL. Reyna, Circuit Judge. Charles L. Thomason, Thomason Law Office, Louisville, KY, argued for appellant. Johanna Wilbert, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI, argued for appellee. Also represented by Nicole Murray
Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina
670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 57 times
Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 23 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,185 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1063 - Opposition to registration
15 U.S.C. § 1063 Cited 146 times 19 Legal Analyses
Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"
Section 2.106 - Answer
37 C.F.R. § 2.106 Cited 12 times
Defining compulsory counterclaim as "defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the opposition"
Section 2.128 - Briefs at final hearing
37 C.F.R. § 2.128 Cited 3 times
Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB

Four Seasons Brands, LLC v. Kirstie L. Crivello

18 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

Finding similarity between LASER for golf clubs and golf balls and LASERSWING for golf practice devices, and noting that "the term ‘swing’ is both common and descriptive" and therefore "may be given little weight in reaching a conclusion on likelihood of confusion"

Holding that district court erred by "basing its decision on a single laches period for all three patents" when they were all issued at different times

Concluding that a petitioner did not have a valid cause of action because it was precluded by a prior settlement agreement

Holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made "on information and belief"

In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Identifying "dilution by blurring ... under section 1125(c) as a permissible grounds for opposition to a registration"

Defining compulsory counterclaim as "defense attacking the validity of any one or more of the registrations pleaded in the opposition"

Setting forth rules for submission of briefs to the TTAB